Matches in Nanopublications for { ?s <https://w3id.org/linkflows/reviews/hasCommentText> ?o ?g. }
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of the formalization is a "FormalizationActivity" as was correctly chosen and filled in." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The rephrasing of the scientific claim is clear and in an AIDA-form." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I have some doubts about the context class used, as I am not sure if, from a biological point of view, the interpretation of the formalization makes sense." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "A small thing: to start the sentence containing the scientific claim with an uppercase letter." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The scientific claim "mutations in STX1B are associated with epilepsy" contains an unknown or wrong character for the "STX1B" subunit. This should be corrected." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization reflects very well the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization is good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the modelling of the formalization reflects the content of the scientific claim very well." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization seems to reflect well the content of the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The literal for the rdfs:label of the super-pattern instantiation should contain the actual (rephrased) scientific claim (ideally in an AIDA sentence), not the doi to the article. This should be changed." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The scientific claim does not seem to be atomic, as it mentions two genes, IRX3 and IRX5. I think it should be broken into two different claims, one for each of these genes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the scientific claim (if we assume the claim is rephrased in an atomic way) seems correct." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of this formalization should be a "FormalizationActivity". As such, the source of the scientific claim (the original scientific article) can be specified, together with the quote from the article that contains the scientific claim and the orcid of the author of the formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the formalization structure is good, reflecting almost all the details of the scientific claim. If the missing details about the "autosomal recessive disorder" were to be included, this would make the formalization complete in my view." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The class creation and also the related term in Wikidata seem correct." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general definition of the class seems ok." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the skos:related object should be <http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q898356>." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general definition seems ok." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I am not sure that this is a correctly chosen Wikidata class in this case, as this is a scientific article." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The description of the class seems ok." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Check again if this is a good fit, if not remove the subclass entirely." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The class definition is good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using camel case." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using "_"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Maybe a skos:related term can be added in the form of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1754768 as an object." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general class declaration looks good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using camel case." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using "_"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using "_"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I think a correct subclass would be "treatment" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q179661)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I think a skos:related class can be added here. It can be either "pharmacogenomics " (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1152227) or "clopidogrel" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q410237)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Good class definition and declaration." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Great usage of a new nested class." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I think a skos:related class can be added here. It can be either "pharmacogenomics " (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1152227) or "clopidogrel" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q410237)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general structure is good, but some improvements can be made to make it more complete, like adding a class of which the current one is a subclass of and also adding related classes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The class definition and declaration seems good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The "IRX3" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18046058) and "IRX5" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18035174) classes should be added as related classes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the correct qualifier here would be "generally"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The name of the class needs to be corrected. The general convention when creating a new class in Nanobench is for the individual elements (words) of the class to be separated by a "-" and use capital letters only when the elements are acronyms." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the chosen qualifier here should be "generally"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general structure of the formalization seems to reflect very well the chosen scientific claim, except for the qualifier, which can be chosen better." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This is not a subclassof obesity (http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q12174), but a skos:relatedTo class. This should be corrected." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The name of the class was updated according to the Nanobench convention." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I couldn't find that exact quote from the original paper. It seems that this is a paraphrase whereas it should be the verbatim quote." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance should use the 'Generated by a formalization activity' template." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "You are now stating that the given deficiency is caused by the ERAD pathway, which doesn't sound right. I suppose it should be something like: it is caused by the dysfunction of the ERAD pathway. So, it would mean to mint a new class 'dysfunction of ERAD pathway' and then use this class in object position." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance part should use the template 'generated from a formalization activity'." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The context class 'chemical to gene association' doesn't make sense to me here. I suppose we are talking about individual patients here, so then the context class 'human' would make sense, meaning whenever a human has this condition then it is sometimes related to that other condition *of the same human*." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance part should use the template 'generated from a formalization activity'." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I am not sure about the isSameAs relation. This might be fine depending on how the other classes are filled in in the final version, but I have the impression that it should rather be something like isCausedBy." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This looks like a good formalization to me." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Overall, I think this is a very good formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provided label for the superpattern instance refers to 'licenses with a non-commertial clause' in general, whereas the actual formalization has the specific kind of license 'Creative Commons NonCommercial' in subject position. This should be make consistent in one way or the other." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provided label for the superpattern instance refers to 'licenses with a non-commertial clause' in general, whereas the actual formalization has the specific kind of license 'Creative Commons NonCommercial' in subject position. This should be make consistent in one way or the other." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I am a bit uncertain about the subject class. It is defined as a subclass of 'knowledge graph' but seems to be treated more like an instance. I think it would be good to better specify (in the formalization nanopub or the class definition one) what the instances of the class 'OpenBiodiv knowledge graph' really are (maybe the different versions/branches?)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "With a protein class in the object position and a gene in the context, this raises for me the question what it means for a protein to be in the context of a gene. Maybe a class like 'presence of TAR DNA binding protein' in object position might make it clearer? But I am not sure..." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "With a protein class in the object position and a gene in the context, this raises for me the question what it means for a protein to be in the context of a gene. Maybe a class like 'presence of TAR DNA binding protein' in object position might make it clearer? But I am not sure..." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This looks like a very good formalization to me." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I am wondering whether the "never causes" is a bit too strong a relation, also given the natural language sentence. "Never affects" might be more precise than "never causes". (This is also a stronger statement, more likely to be wrong, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.)" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This looks like a very good formalization to me." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of this formalization is a "FormalizationActivity" where the link to the article and the actual quote from the same article from which the scientific claim was derived need to be specified together with the orcid of the formalization author. This should be changed accordingly." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Something small: I would start the scientific claim with an upper case and end it with a period." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance section does not contain a reference to the original article" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Reference to the original article is missing" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Apart from the object class link, this is a very convincing formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The relation subClassOf was replaced with skos:related as it matches better the intended meaning. The new class is now related to both - the neocortex and size - classes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you for the review. It has been changed in the formal definition of class which is now skos:related to both - the cortex class and the size class in Wikidata." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I do have to agree. However, I changed it to affects instead of causes since it is a negation and leaves the option open to find a positive correlation in the future." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance is correct, the formalization is the result of a "FormalizationActivity" and the article and exact quote from the article of the scientific claim are present." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I agree with this formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The content of this formalization looks good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization looks good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks for the feedback" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks for the feedback" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks for the feedback" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks, I updated the object class to http://purl.org/np/RAiUYY1dbEDbcsscapEmbMMHsgJmjEJ1yUoNsxZIH1r90#transcription-of-stmn2" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks! m." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks for the positive review on the class definition." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I updated the quote, that now comes from the (abstract of the) original article." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I agree that this can be confusing. In response to a formalization review comment (3), I added a new class "Digital humanities research"which is a subclass of the resource "research" in wikidata and related to the resource "digital humanities" in wikidata." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Provenance was changed to show that it was generated by a formalization activity, and the necessary attributes of that template were added." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Whether we consider a protein in the context of a gene or the PRESENCE of the protein in that context is a subtle distinction whose need here eludes me. This requires further discussion." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "AND was changed to and" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "no action needed" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "related classes added" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "An exact quote from the paper was added" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The paper refers to both genes and both genes are regulated. Not sure if it should be split into two claims or remain as one" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "the article link was updated as suggested" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "changed to the updated format where AND was replaced with and" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks for the positive review on the class definition." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks for the positive review on the class definition." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you!" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I agree that it was not clear that this is an instance. To address this review comment, I have created a new class (latest-release-of-openbiodiv), which is a subclass of software release (Q20631656) and related to openbiodiv-knowledge-graph, and I have updated the formalisation nanopub to say that 'The latest release of the OpenBiodiv knowledge graph contains semantic triples extracted from biodiversity literature'. Thank you for your review!" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you! In response to your other review comment we made small changes to the formalisation." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you for your review!" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you!" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "nothing to change" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "done" assertion.